Judge grants order for English couple to adopt Scottish children

The siblings were taken into care following concerns about their well-being while in the care of their parents and had been living with their natural mother’s half-sister and her husband for three years.

A judge in the Court of Session ruled that adoption was “necessary and proportionate” in the circumstances of the case.

Lady Wise (pictured) has issued an opinion in respect of two adoption petitions, both at the instance of Mr AV and Mrs SV, spouses who lived together in Norfolk and who applied to adopt the children KFF, 10, and KCF, 6, who have resided with the petitioners continuously since June 2014.

The first respondent, AJF, the natural mother of the children and the second respondent, IDF, their natural father, both held full parental rights and parental responsibilities in respect of each child and opposed the petitioners’ applications to adopt the children.

The court heard that the respondents and their children came to the attention of Social Work Services in 2011 after the department received reports from police of domestic violence between the respondents, who are married and live together in the West of Scotland.

Nursery staff also raised concerns about the welfare of KCF, after noticing that she had certain markings on her face and injuries to her head.

After being placed in the care of her maternal grandmother before being returned to her parents, KCF was removed from the care of the respondents and placed in the care of local authority foster carers.

Her younger sister KFF was also placed into local authority care over concerns about the parents’ ability to care for their children.

Education staff reported that KFF had told school staff that her father had hit her, but when interviewed by social work staff she did not repeat the allegation.

Concerns were also raised after the respondents allowed IDF’s brother, a known sex offender, to move into their home and live with them.

While there was no concrete evidence of any specific incident involving the uncle and the child, KFF’s behaviour gave rise to a concern that something may have happened to her while her uncle was within the home.

KFF was placed in the care of the local authority shortly afterwards and following a children’s hearing both children moved to reside with the petitioners in June 2014.

The children were placed with Mr and Mrs V as kinship carers by the local authority in implementation of its obligations pursuant to compulsory supervision orders being made in respect of each child.

The petitioners applied for adoption, but the respondents opposed the petition on the basis that the circumstances of this case did not disclose that adoption, as an order of last resort, was necessary in order to meet the needs of the children.

Following an eight-day proof, the judge said she had “no hesitation” in accepting as “credible and reliable” all of the witnesses led in the petitioners’ case.

The first respondent did not give evidence and as far as the second respondent was concerned, the judge noted that he continued to dispute that there were any significant issues with his parenting of the children.

Lady Wise said: “I conclude that the acceptable evidence demonstrates that the respondents have been unable to parent these children satisfactorily while they were in their care. The evidence of a continued lack of engagement with social services, thereafter, coupled with the occasions on which they have let the children down by failing to attend for contact, telephone or otherwise, and the second respondent’s continued denial of any deficiencies with his parenting, all support a conclusion that both respondents’ inability to satisfactorily discharge their parental rights and responsibilities it is likely to continue into the future.”

On the likely effect of making an adoption order, the judge observed that the children would become “part of the family” of Mr and Mrs V for the rest of their lives, which would have a “positive impact” on both KCF and KFF.

Having considered whether to make a residence order regulating the children’s residence with Mr and Mrs V and granting them some parental responsibilities and rights, the judge concluded that the “only way in which the children could be assured of having a set of parents with the ability to support and guide them throughout their lives is by the making of an adoption order”.

In a written opinion, Lady Wise said: “For these reasons and in the particular circumstances of this case, I consider that the last resort option of adoption for these children by the petitioners is both necessary and proportionate. None of the parties suggested that it would appropriate to grant an adoption order in respect of one of the children but not the other and I consider that it would be antithetical to the interests of whichever girl was not adopted to know, now or in the future, that she was in a different position to her sister. The whole background supports such a conclusion.

“The instability of the children’s lives from early childhood, the physical injuries to KCF while in her parents’ care, the failure to protect KFF from the risk of harm, the failure or inability to change for the benefit of the children, the positive nurturing features of the current placement, the uncertainty and instability consequent upon the respondents inability or unwillingness to put the needs of the children even after they were placed with the petitioners, the strongly expressed desire of KFF to be claimed properly and legally forever as part of the petitioners’ family and the risk of future challenge to any order short of adoption, taken together make adoption an imperative outcome in this case.”